[watwut]

While I agree with you, I would point out that planned economy plans are rarely "for the good of everyone". Planmakers tend to enrich themselves and their buddies.

I'm tempted to write never, but there might have been that one historical event when it went right.

[brazzy]

That's why I wrote "not even nominally for the good of everyone" - explicit economic plans, at least the socialist variety are usually for the good of all in theory but not in practice. A monopoly-based plan would not even claim to be.

Also, I don't think the biggest problem with plans is self-enrichment by the plan makers, but inflexibility, the lack of good information, misaligned incentives and unintended consequences. And the biggest strength of a market economy is not the absence of any of these problems, but that they don't effect everything euqally and the companies that are affected the most just fail without dragging down everything.

[crdoconnor]

>While I agree with you, I would point out that planned economy plans are rarely "for the good of everyone".

This is exactly how it works under our system too. Instead of economic planning being set in motion by the nomenklatura, it's done by the heads of major banks.